beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. Around August 6, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed with dementia, and B, his/her dependent, applied for the commencement of adult guardianship to the Plaintiff as the Incheon Family Court 2016-Ma10185, and was adjudicated on July 17, 2017 by the above court, and appointed B as the Plaintiff’s adult guardian, and the judgment became final and conclusive.
B. The Defendant is the Plaintiff’s grandchildren, and D is the Defendant’s mother and the Plaintiff’s shot.
C. On May 2, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to donate 1/10 of the shares of each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “each of the instant real estate”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant donation contract”), and entered into an ownership change agreement with the Plaintiff to change the ownership relationship of each of the instant real estate owned by the Defendant and the Defendant into a joint ownership agreement (hereinafter “instant joint ownership agreement”).
The registration of partial transfer of ownership was completed as of May 8, 2014 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 103456, May 8, 2014. In other words, the registration of partial transfer of ownership was completed on the Plaintiff’s 9/10 shares, Defendant’s 1/10 shares on the ground of the instant joint ownership agreement, as of May 8, 2014, No. 103457 and No. 103458, May 8, 2014.
【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, and 14, and the purport of the whole pleading
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) around August 6, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into the instant gift agreement and joint contract in the situation where the Plaintiff was diagnosed of Albuses-based dementia; and (b) thereafter, the decision to commence adult guardianship was rendered based on the aforementioned dementia diagnosis; (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion was revoked pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Civil Act; and (d) the Plaintiff lacks the ability to make reasonable decisions due to the aforementioned dementia.